The Sun. — London, England, 1818-02-11 00:00:00

W' coulJ not without perjury make upon bit oath after the offers which were made to him. In conclusion, h e Wi , hed it to "'l ilt be di st i nct l y understood, that i n he had said, or in the course of conduct, WhlCh in respect of this matter he felt it his duty tpoerPZile;,ilinoy lfewgiatsnot actuated by an y f ee li ngs o f against the Learned Lord. or a nY of the other most respectable persons whose na mes w• re implicated to the transaction. He fro°e''ethd entirely upon public grounds, "141 act ed m Motives of d 'itilili e d ivv. He con'ujed by F „ I°.vil-1 " Illat the re h e l a i d before the House Co ieB of such part s of th e record s entered upon the i"la"(1 nn a i s of the Hi gh c owl of Justiciary i n Scot -1:.e1, as container! the ituti c i tnent , e v id ence , ver t, 'am! juOgnient of the Court, in the proceed .',g' on the trial of Archibald M`EibiaY, on the 1 tli day of Jelv, 1817 '' SCOTLAND ;li ll ' e L°RD ADVoCATF: of said, that I\vould begin by endeavouring to set himself l ' i ,,. ‘vi , t !' t he 'louse as to the chat ge made i t o g ",`, -- nim of having in the last Session wane Liii t e Rous e an exaggerated statement of t•{ e i ia „ ii " °1 Scotland. The statement which he v 41.41 e was in effect, that in a certain part of ecn t h loin itnd an o at h h a d hecn administered to many get!: r"l "rsons, by which they %vere board t( . , - 014 er ~„,t ° effect treasonable objects. It was evei r i eett against him that. such a statement w as, fe ei a l; a ir h 4 i lt e : li r e : e i , in i t : s ti e ne t c oess a t y and uncalled for. . judge of the justice ( - 1! this *hl e h 1 , 1 " woold refer to the occasion on Sion e '''e statetnent was made. The ove see w as the debate upon the Re p ort of t he it t n r r e ,,, t . , Cw hinit Ice of the House. In that i t t ' ' - '" ti , e state o , ckotlatid was expressly illud v - If) ' 4 ° l Atiti Gla , go ve - Was particularly mentioned. ll' ie a C t It "'as objected that the statement was li e h — ''' , ,or ? s i , t.r from this. he felt th a t if It: 13 ""litted t o - state w h at so materially set vet! th,," . '''i o i the H„,, e w i t h . to 6111),w:int fact rela , i tt .. 1, 4 ' 0 ilie 5it,,,,,i" of th e . country, he wo u l d . e heen guilty .01 a gross breach of duty- So -, th fin that charge agdoist hint. ; I n the piocettling,s in the • Widi respect case of Nl`Kinlay, al ei'll'igit he would enter fully into all the material rellrliStanCeS, yet he would not trouble the . -40 43 ~ . . icts in that: e with the details of all the evidet . for ark The charge against M`Kinlay was i r. agliiiiisteliOg an unlawful oath 5 414 at secret meetings ; the issue of the trial ', Vas to several per secret of not proven He spoke in the hearing' ti ev Otal Him. aml Learned Gentlemen on the - ..'; ).., it1e of the House who were conversant ti lt 11 1 : (: l avvs !If Scotland, and knew the distittc m• wpich those laws made between a verdict of 47 at t, • : 4 li,„• 6 1 . 11 " 1-1 Y and a verdict of not proven. The dis ' ste ii il as this—that where the evidence was s t•,: )- g en uueli to satisfy the Jury that there wa j- Plis der • t h at t h ere gu i lt on- the part of th „ . tett, toeee was b r(ia l .:r wler ; hut . such as was not sutfici i e o i n tly t 4 't bogie to him to roars o a .convict vklAct was not iroveu On Cie oilier han d, 11 • 11eri. it dil l "01 apt i nar from the evidence that te te v ., 4 _ • lung criini rtal (s " corpus delicti, and where nut ,e.t.aied, 11,, ' inte otit in which the piisont r was on.o! , ~ ver(fict ye • by the %Vr tlitt i ty .. i. a , not guilty. Therefore,,.. „t oo o til e 0 , 01 'vu li.mhiv's case, the admin,s r. , . a J ,i,-, t , I ;" * , a P r i , ved , hot not proved salico•ufly not',l- —`iiiky: At least, therefore, I toruitd IL ' '-a' the oath whirl) he last year rea- '0 i . I . e , 1 " 1 ""? " t 'a d s , j ' n impositio,,, but bad really been ad it I,i s ' ti... " ' l ' the Aviv , which he had then thought , the c':• -"Y tn state l A, to the principal part o f rho I co d i r n ge P r el'err e d by the Noble Lord—tia.).el t y h , tvit„„ nimiic:Ation of the Lord Advocate wi rt.or , l i " ; ' ' he b egged testate the reasons "by ' l `e, Lis ‘ i 'l , ' : n e ," of s e „, 1, o d was, by the nature or 8 ' ( "ti— ' : Pll eed in a till' rent si nation, %% it') re tpect to wroesses, tr,-,n i th a t in tviucti the Actor i7-6: "I'3 , i° Eugh th e stood. That difference of troliation, lie then , 11 1 1 the circumstance of proceeded to stare, arose sl,l"P4rme Government, without any resident Scotland being under • 111 " ist "tion ; and consequently the ditties 11; the Lea interne --•" Advocate involved an attention 1 4 the I 1 11 11 tyto „ t : it s s l4 p l , , : ti o e f e t . he T ec L nt i, r i y, and a super d Advocate was olni"sr d•ulv.applieit to by Magistrates for advice ilie stibje'es relative t „ t,,, preservation of the pub ,ePeace ;and the person to st.hnst, rs look for informatimi on whom his Majesty's the internal „ I ' l le Nett Scotland is the Ki ng ' s Advocate. lu this ,;sect then there was a great distinction between ~,._ e . th ose b utes of the Lord Advocate as compared wi th t , of the Attorhey-General. lit short, the .. Me's Advocate in Scotland should take ever y an : , 4sure relative to the state of Scotland which it . Y 4,,, , " co mpetent for the Secretary of State to take ail D t L'ingLiod—,thich if the Attorney• General were t n(1 0 he tvould be usurping the powers of the Se )'ary of State.—(llear, hear, hear !)--With i li lit'et to the iosiiturioti of criminal prosecutions (4._"' : Cotlantl, the Lord Advocate was in fact the i i `"I'l Jury of , hat country. Proceedings there 41 l'itnitial cases wet e commenced by what is called LI re cognition, a process (as we undertood the ,Na ltd Lo t (I) taken befor e the Sheriff, .his De vin. ki ..', or the Procurator-Fiscal. Vt'han a precog -1::"h waS takeo, it Was transmitted tirectlyto the ti le rd Advocate, wh w o as to p ass his opinion on • tin propriety o f t h e proceedings under it ; arid it 1 1 1 11 examinin it he saw t h at the witnesses. ti Q h `' 40 t been p roper l y examined, or that the lt, et ' s sary witnesses . had hot been examined, .1 i :, was to di rect that the proceedings should I,' a mended or renewed. These were part vt the tit s of the Lord Advocate. The object of what .111',Ioulll done i n the present instanc e was his eXa- 4 lg Witnesses under confinement. 'That such I l it oceedi ng was i nslifiible he would prove from 44°,1 precedents in good times. In 1738, under s:",1 President Forbes (and there was a similar in !itict, under the Lord President Dundas), con ii'leittotis took pl ace on confessions taken in a olic Jail by the Lord Ad vocate and the other m‘v Officers. This showed that at least there tits limiting unusual in sending Gentlemen to rise the examination 'k ath of wi tnesses, provided that ihatl WaS (!leer no' improperly conducted.-- ~ hear, hear, from the Opposition.) —The 14°1.1 Advocate hurl a p ecu li ar interest in attend ing to tl, • : 1 they WeerleMiCordings on the pre -cognitio ns , f or properly conducted he was liable ;:l.:71 Pi.r..l.lc•eesei:iei le, b; I In ((a r lt t ill a y el ; tu i ° ,,l. ;i st;eotion • It %VIA'S settled in the tirne of the that at if the L or d Adyo prosecution o n ini tliu,ki 13r°""(1s, ant! wit prop er evidence, lie e personally liable for any injury suffered by the person subjected to the prosecution. With respect to wbat hail been bone in rite present casi,., be would not separate - his own ,tots or re sponsibility from those of Mr. Home Drummond. That Gentleman, who filled` the office which he held with such distinguished ability, had, in the case of Campbell, been obliged to perform a very irksome duty in collect ing information from that person—a duty which 'be (the Lord Advocate) regretted to be obliged to depute or assign to any individual but still it was a ditty which could not have been omitted. The prisoners were apprehended at Glasgow, On the opinion of several most respect ahk persons at Glasgow. One and all of the per sons so apprehended, gave the information on which the indictment against M`Kinlay had been laid; and for having broudit him to trial on such grounds, he (the Lord Advocate) was re•l)onsi- Irk before the Court. All the persons arrested referred to Campbell as the man who could give most important information. lo order to obtain that lamination on which the necessary mea sines for the preservation of the public peace must he founded, be immediately felt it hig duty to direct Mr. Drummond to go to the Castle, and ascertain from Campbell whether he woad be in- ihiced to give the important information in consi deration of a promise of pardon. Mien this was done, there was no idea whatever of using Camp bell as a witness--(Hear, hear !)-11r Drum- mond had no authority to offer to Campbell any situation ‘ihatever, with the view of inducing him to give information ; and he was authorked to deny that Mr. Drummond ever made any such offer. In stating Mi Drummond's account of k vbat pass ed between biro and Campbell, he was aware that it was opposing the statement of Mr. Drummond, not upon oath, to that of Campbell !pun Oath ; but he was willing that it should rest on • the statement of Mr'. DroMmond against the oath of Campbell. As to the deposition read by the Noble Lord whose motion was before the House, it Was plain that Campbell had made it to disqua lify himselffronfappearing as a witness. Camp bell bad a plain interest in this disqualification, for hereby, Ist, it might tend to the acquittal of M`Kinlay ; 2tl, it would prevent any of that dan ger with which at one time he said his life was threatened. The great charge was that he should have possessed himself of what was likely to he the sum of Campbell's evidence. If to do so were , a crime, he would ask an Hon. and Learned Gen tleman opposite to say whether he, and two of his friends, were riot acquainted with the evi dence which was to be given by Campbell. (Hear; hear, hear!)—He held in his hand A state ment of the proceedings on the trial which proved this, in which Mr. Jeffery . , the Counsel for the prisouer, said he would be able step by sit p to corroborate the w hale evidence of Campbell., Now lie would wish the Hon. and Learned Gen. tkinan opposite to say,' hether he and his friends had not icwarfied Campbell for urrnishing them with that evidence ?—(The.Learned Lord parised some time for a r, ply—lone was made.)—Camp bell, ' hen asked for int rination, said that be dared ;lot give it, because if he did his life would he e•qhing-cy ed. On this a sate passage to the • contiueui a as offered to bin, to secure his life kl! ,- tillbt the danger of 4 : lying information, and this , oti . r was no sooner made theen he said,t hat if it were , tulalit-I, he would not only give information, but , evidence upon the trial. Previous to making this offcr lie haul consulted whli the Law Officers of Hie Crown no the propriety of making it ; and , they were unanimously of ()pillion that it was their duty to protect Campbell agauist the danger of givmg information on evidence, and to protect him in that Way which be thought would be most available'. The prisoner soon after expressed much apprehension on account of his wife, who was then near her time of confinement, and rtt- plied for sonic money to relieve her. This, and every other application for money, was positively • refused ; but that which humanity dictated was done, .and the prisoners -wife was ordered to be conveyed to,Editibutgli, and this was done open ly, for the Magistrates of Glasgow were directed to take a place for her in a stage coach. With respect to the promises made to Campbell, whe tiler they were legal or not, they were made on a principle of strict' duty. If he had thoneht them illegal, the very last thing which he would have done would have been to send for Sir %V Rae, and to have made the promises in his presence, when they might have been made with the ut most secrecy, and so as never to rise up in judg ment against him.- %Viten the thing could have been done secretly, is it conceivable that if there was any notion of illegality in the proceeding,' he . should have chosen that it should take place in a way to place it on the tecords of the Court ? (The Learned Lord then read from a report of the trial an account of what took place before the Sheriff, Sir %Villiatn Rae.) It appeared that the. Sheriff burned the first deposition. This skews that the Sheriff, at least, did not think the offer of protection illegal, for if he did, the very last act which be ought to have done was to burn the de position. Two promises of protection were mane to Campbell, the one to give him the means of going to the Continent, the othe to give him the means of going to some of the Colonies. LI the first deposition, the first promise was made. If it was illegal, the second was equallpo ; mid the de position taken under the second promise and re cortled, was as illegal as that taken tinder the first, which was destroyed. So much for the facts.—. Now fur the point of law. The Noble Lord truly stated, that when the initiatory question was put to the witness—" Do you bear any malice to the pris9ner ?" if the answer was in the affirmative; the Court would proceed to inquire what was the nature of the malice, and whether it was such as would affect the evidence of the witness. The case was the same with the second initiatory ques tion, •'• have you been told what to say ?" The third question was, " has any reward been offered to you for bearing testimony in this case ?" And if the answer was in the affirmative, then it was to be ascertained whether the nature of the re tard was such as to affect the testimony of the witness. In the present case, the question arose on this 3d poinr. If the principle contended for on the. other side were true, no socius criniinis could even be admitted as a .witness. And yet no thing was more cleat ly established than that the evidence of socius dimznis, Woo came forward as a .] withese under a gift of pariloni was good evi dence. He referred to a passage in the Treatise of Burnet, p. 416, and to the case of. Home v. Bth'December, 179 w, in which it was de cided, that " a promise of a certain reward to witness, if would speak out, does not amount to a disqualification of the witness." The N shle Lord had been completely misinformed as to the Law of Scotland on this s , ,bject; In Lord Mel ville's trial .1 question arose on the admissibility of the testimony of Mr. Trotter, on the ground of its being given under promise of reward, and the opi nion of the twelve Judges was taken upon it. The third part of that opinion dis!inctly stated that no promise of reward for sneaking " the full truth," amounted to a disqualification of a witness. 'fhis was not merely the Law of Scotland, it was one of the great principles of the Constitutional 1.44 W of the Country. But the Noble Lord 'contended that the prosecutor ought not to evirnine before hand any witness at all. He would disprove this by an tinexceptiotiable authority—no less than the authority of this House in the case of Lord Melville, where Mr. Trotter was called before the Committee of Managera, and 'questioned touching the evidence which he was likely to give on the trial. These were authorities which he hoped the House wool:I think amply justified •his conduct in the case of Campbell, and which more that, justified it, by pointing out to him that con duct as his duty. One part of the deposition of Campbell was read by the Noble Lord in a very low tone. It was a very important part, and therefore he would now read it with the leave of the House. It was the caneluding part of it. in which it was expressly stated, that " nothing had been said to him to instruct hies in the evidence whi c h h e should give im the trial." On the whole, therefore, he trusted that he had made out to the satisfaction of the Hinise, that the private exami nation was no objection to the wiiness ; and if no objection to the witness, that there was tin ille gality on the port of those who advised or con ducted. that examination. The Learned Lord then referred to the declaration MAC by. Campb,-11, " that he had been treated by all the Counsel for the Crown, but especially by the Lord Advocate, with the utmost kindness and li.swriiiity." The Noble Lord (Archibald Hamilton) had stated that the object was to keep. the private exatninat ion secret. Seem! ! 1.1 7 as the lakine of the deposition be fore fir Win. Rae, the She' iff, like a wish to keep it secret ? On the contrary, did it not manifest an inten tion to give it publicity was the sole object of having it before the Sheriff, because he ft It that by doing 'it so, and by having the whole entered upon the Records in the Crown Office, lie permanently fixed the responsibility of the whole transaction upon himself, in order that if there was blame it might be attached to the proper. person. It- had been said too, that Campbell was brought forward by hint for the purpose of hanging MtKinlay The disproof of this was in the circumstance that, Campbell was not called upon as' ••ir wit ness until that stage of the trial when 111(Kin- . lay was out of jeopardy. On the wirole, therefore, he thought no ground was made out for the present motion. 'ln. -addition to all other reasons against it, by bringing the ques tion before Parliament; the - relief' to .Whicte ri s e person- professing to be aggrieved was entiOed before a Court of Justice was interfered. with.: He therefore trusters that the House would now follow the precedent etruablisited in its decision in 1794, on the motion to produce the Records of the Trial of Palmer and wirers, where, although above twenty objections to the trial were made, the House decided that the records•should pot be pro duced. Mr. J. P. GRANT-Said, that having bcen . prest nt during the trial, and having had:a good deal of information from others .on this subjct„notiiing . would give him .more pleasure than 40 .find that the Learned , Lord,..might be able to do a ..a . e;t effects which. had ,been produced by CatopbelPs testimony,- -This was not a question of a. personal nature; it was a grave charge brottgrt against a pub lic officer, in Which the whole contit'ry wasinterest ed ; and it involved in it :4 . qnestion of the most vital interest to the public at large. He must now deliver his opinion respecting the conduct - of GentlemeO. who belonged to the same profession with himself, and whose character he hall at all times respected and it was naturally to be supposed, that he must feel great uneasiness in stating his •-opinion of them. He should enter into a short history.ot the conduct. of the Law Officers of the Crown to ., wards the person .Who bad been selected by them selves as a witness, for the purpose of convicting a prisoner. The charge against these Gentletnen was twofold; first, it was ; imputed to the Law Officers that they had tampered with a witness, in order to influence the testimony which he Was to give on the trial of a prisoner; and in the next place, that the witness•had been told a ques tion was to be put to him, which he must answer in the negative. Aod yet they knew that it the witness did answer the question in the negative, , he should pet:jure hithself. These accusations stood . on record ; and were uncortradieted, ex cept by the Learned Lord himself.. Whether, the accusation was true or false, it was-the duty of the: House to .enter into an enquiry upon it. He should ask the • Attorney-General if ever he knew of a case where perjury could have been more clearly made out.: If Campbell had given a false tes— timony—if he had, sworn falsely, why did not the Lord Advocate, who wos himself the Grand Jury of Scotland, institute a prosecution against hint ? He had nothing to do but prosecute that man for perjury, and it be succeeded in the prose cution, he would have secured the profession to . which he belonged from, a : great share of obloquy, which had heen thrown upon it. He should now state some parts which would enable the house to torm a judgment of the case before it. Here Mr. Grant read from a printed report of the trial, the deposition of the witness, Campbell, with a view of shearing the efforts made to influence the testi mony of that person. He had stated on his oath, that Mr. Drummond and the Procurator • Fiscal had-come and tampered with hint, that when he was removed to Edinburgh he was again called upon to be a witness against M'Kinlay; he v.-b.:told his name was in the list of witnesses, and that he must appearon the trial. The witness then said he could not give his evidence ; and could nor go back to Glasgow , if he did give any evidence. Mr. Drummond then said he would send hint away • • to a 'place orsafely ; or that he would write to Lord Sidniooth to get Linn a.place in the Excise. To this he-replied that he did not like to be an exciseman. After this Air. Drummond came back and asked Campbell what he would have. The witness remained silent, and made no answer that question. Mr. Drummond Own told him 111,:t if he should give such intorina:ion as would please the Lord Advocate, he should neither he flied himself, nor made a witness. All this t‘e.s done by Mr. Drummond, who thus gave the man to understand, that if be did not comply with what was requir,il of him, he should tie stied for his life It was impossible to conceive a greater per version of justice than this, provided the roan's statements were true; and it they .vere not true, wily were they not 'contradicted ? Why was not the man prosecuted for perjury ? Campbell aftt wards sald be could not be a witness on the trial, unless he a passport to go to the Continent, together with the means of taking him over.— Prussia was die place lie wished to go to: his rea son for wishing to go there was, because a man of his trade could! have got large wages Hi, Putts sia Afterwards he said the gaoler gave hittra. pair of shoes by order of Mr. DruMinond; and to -• his demand for itioiley, the answer was, tout none could be given him until the first trial was over, If this matt spoke falsehoods, why was he not in dieti:d for perjary ? The Learned Lord achnotr. ledged that papers had been destroyed, and he woidd inter that they .wert! destroyed - hee: h i se every thing courained in them was not fit to see the light.:—(Lauginer.)—The man did oor say th a t hi s life %TH.:in datigt.T ; h,ht C. , 41 he did not wish to go • hack to Glas!.!rivr. The subject of accusariou rigaiwo the Lord Advocate Was , 1113, th:lt his ,deputy, Mr. Drummond, had hi. hi out promises of reward .to the witness f.,r the tvs•ituoily he should give. He tiliteue .. ! trout the Le.irneo Lord s .to the iaw. h, 1t:ot laid ,own ~n tht poitit ►i►e ho(,k tploakd was nor considered as a book of auttioritt:. It was :tot the law tit' Seotland,.that a mail could 'be examined as a witness %Olt, re e ,iv e n 3; ; ) , re wards ; and here Mr. e. quoted the ()pinto.+ of five eminent lawyers in Seto fano, who laid‘ithoots as their opinion, that any witness who received rewards or promises for evidence was ; among these lawyers were Mr. Cranston, Mr. Moncrief, anti Mr. Rutherford. Those gentie men also stated that Burnett• was bad authority. Now the Crown lawyers of Scotland either put this man in the liX, knowing that lie could no; be a witness, or they knew that he must be in, strumental in convicting the accused party. The trial went on, •and the Learned Lord drop• ped the prosecution, because the l'eitticss on whom he replied .would not stipport his case. Here Mr. G. quoted the case : of • two persons who bad been indicted for subornation of perjury in the Trial of Titus Oats. In that case Mr. Polixon, the Counsel, insisted that he had a right to give protection and encouragement.to his wit ness ; on which occasion •old-Serjeant Maynard, who conducted the prosecution,obse ived Yo u find out. abetter way than the devil himselfrould -do, tortphold subornation of prrj try ;" and in this sentiment of the Learned Serjeaot the Judges fully coincided. - If such tampering with witnesses as appeared to have taken place in the, p: - esein stance were there .was. not--a pettifogger it; the kingdom who would not be •eudeavoming to pervert the ends of p u bli c justice; and if the House did not enter into this investigation, it uvonld do the greatest disservice to the -country, and public.justice would be trifird with. Mt. COLQUHOUN- contended that no charges were eeer noire unfounded than those included in the preSent motion. Many of the, deposit:ions - of Catnpbell were falsi fi ed by their absurdity; for was it to he believed ',that Mr. Drummond, ?titer . promblng to send the man out of the 'Cour try on account of his danger, woldil, at the same moment, offer to procure hint a situation in the Excise ? This was inconsistent on the very face of tt, and bore internal evidence •of its falsehood. Witls a few scraps of •truth the - . man had Mixed up a multitude- offalsehoods. He denied that it was a reward- to scan a man out of. the country a t the noblie expence, when .his -personal safety required it ; therefore the Crown Low yers of Scotland were justified by law• in promising to send the—man away. How could it be a reward to banish a.man from his .native country and was it not - proper for the• prosecutors to avail themselves of his •testimony on such. condition ? The Learned-Lord had a fair right to get at the testimOny of Campbell - in . the way he did. The witness's testimony will not rejected on the ground of its being illegal ; but the prosecution tailed because . some other witnesses, who had been expected, did not come forward. Mr. C. W. WyNt.l conceived thakthe question lay tvb bin a very narrow compass.. • - There were many - 'balances of witnesses on trials having tnrne. s l round and given evidence directly contrary to their former statements. Such an instance oc curred in 1-621; when several. Gentlemen were tried , for High Treason, in Lancashire. The wit ness against them - turned round in that way, and the prosecutions fell to the ground.:: After-this the House of Commons toolt'up the subject, and declared its opinion that there was • nothing im proper in the-conduct of the .proiecuting parties. In the present case the House was justifien in instituting an enquiry. There was no compai ison between this case and that of . Mr. Muir : for in the latter case the House was called on to review a proceeding in a Court of justice ; but in the pre sent instance-the question was, if,. when a serious complaint )vas-made against the conduct of a public servant, the House of Commons was not bound to take cognizance ot, and make an enquiry into his conduct. lic shoulu therefore support the motion. Lord CASTLEREAGH wished to trouble the House with only a very few observations. He did not think tiny thing had transpired that ought to induce the House to enter into any proceedings on the subject; He could not see on what giound they could with propriety call for the record. Did they wish to look into it to see it the Officer of the Crown had been authorised in his proceed ings ) He apprehended there could be nothing it to show that he had not been justified in in stituting this prosecution. This was established by the proceedings on the. Bench and indeed the whole course of the proceedings went to es ly on ac" read ra• WO In was at• 11;e ucd that r. ,jr' lcink U get Y °ll rem., e ie Set LL -0 iif•keti d 10' ; woolci ber vces 11th. ost "1" D 03 01.. ,vas dis.'' (700 51 ; , e Loyd )11t Mr. p bell, ; ‘l . as to for the tolf l Vl° tier 13 ' C ()1/1( 11/C I:310 is reP I u (je t' t eN3' on WA stated W l° )11 1124 d le, t i t 110:4 d art . ( h. rl, -. • j . 144 oi tl~il',~t~f+ (I o ' ll4 verilo ( I, 1:0,V but 66 iv i rltr 05.7 of s the -user! F"'e seeoc e:s od j)e-ril)4 iy ~t56 (V )I) ti 4 04 igi ir) 'l4a ri: c c o re , wiz et} I.c n rot : - ,otl Air roo" oUtj rt is P ut ,•rovit IfIIL'UL cr tbe I pot [AM teil 11).e istW poiriC (bar CI) 1 ": x 011 1 (.. L n ill lit be ;chi it U unie'S rtlau'l If 11t',5 f l ( - rawly* Ise by ~uii;~)